2015 Memphis Regional Canopy Action Plan

MEMPHIS REGIONAL

Canopy Action Plan “From Assessment to Action” The region’s

urban forest will be a sustainably managed and vibrant collection of

TREES & VEGETATION that improves the region’s ecological functions and will

benefit

all people

in the

Memphis Region

PREPARED BY Plan-It Geo, LLC PUBLISHED March 2015

MEMPHIS REGIONAL CANOPY ACTION PLAN “FROM ASSESSMENT TO ACTION” COMPLETED MARCH 2015

Prepared By: Plan-It Geo, LLC

Acknowledgements: Funding was provided by the Tennessee Division of Forestry Core partners included the Wolf River Conservancy, Tennessee Forestry Division, U.S. Forest Service, the University of Memphis Center for Partnerships in GIS, the Memphis Tree Board, and the Tennessee Urban Forestry Council

Prepared For: The Wolf River Conservancy

MEMPHIS REGIONAL CANOPY ACTION PLAN

Table of Contents Introduction Background and Process

1 3

Related Plans and Studies

4

Purpose of the Canopy Action Plan

5

Stakeholder Engagement Assessing the Urban Forest

6 7

Defining Urban Tree Canopy Assessments

8

State of the Canopy

11

Goals and Supporting Strategies

19

Canopy Goals

20

Priority Planting Areas

21

Goals & Strategies for Assessment, Management, & Collaboration Implementation

22 28

Appendices A. Integrating Tree Studies with Greenprint

I

B. Highlights from the SWOT Workshop

II

C. Benefits of Urban Forests

III

D. Additional Resources for the Region

VI

E. Public Assessment and Engagement

VII

F. Charts Summarizing Priority Planting Areas

VIII

G. Priority Parcel Summaries by Municipality

XVI

Tables and Figures List of Tables Table 1. Plans and studies to integrate with the Canopy Action Plan and Urban Tree Canopy Assessment

4

Table 2. Urban Tree Canopy assessment boundaries

10

Table 3. Summary of Potential UTC within Priority Parcels and Total Potential UTC Acres by Municipality and Unincorporated

14

Table 4. UTC metrics for the Block Groups of Tipton County, TN within the Study Area

16

Table 5. Number of Acres to Reach Canopy Goal for Each City Council District

20

Table 6. Number of Acres to Reach Canopy Goal for Each Municipality

20

Table 7. Canopy added by fully planting all 3 priority planting areas

21

Table 8. Implementation of Assessment Goals

28

Table 9. Implementation of Management Goals

29

Table 10. Implementation of Collaboration Goals

30

List of Figures Figure 1. Tree and land cover metrics for the study area

12

Figure 2. Map of the highest priority parcels with more than an acre of plantable space

12

Figure 3. Distribution of canopy by assessment boundaries

12

Figure 4. Tree and land cover metrics for each municipality

13

Figure 5. Potential UTC within each municipality

13

Figure 6. Example of summaries found in Appendix F.

14

Figure 7. UTC metrics for the Unincorporated Areas

15

Figure 8. Unincorporated Areas within the study area

15

Figure 9. UTC Metrics for the Urban Growth Areas of Munford and Atoka

16

Figure 10. Potential UTC in the Urban Growth Areas

16

Figure 11. Block Groups of Tipton County, TN within the study area

17

Figure 12. UTC metrics for the City Council Districts of Memphis

18

Figure 13. Tree and land cover metrics for each City Council District

18

Figure 14. Potential UTC within each City Council District

18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

He who plants a tree, plants a hope. ~Lucy Larcom, “Plant a Tree”

Across the Memphis region, forests and trees along streets, in parks, yards, and throughout natural areas constitute a valuable urban and community forest. This resource is critical for the region’s green infrastructure, contributing to environmental quality, public health, water supply, local economies, and aesthetic appeal. Urban forests provide “triple bottom line” benefits: social, economic, and environmental.

To manage, monitor, and enhance the quality and stream of benefits received from the region’s urban and community forest, the Wolf River Conservancy initiated a study to assess the extent of Urban Tree Canopy (UTC). The purpose of the study, which covers Shelby County, TN and Munford and Atoka of Tipton County, TN, was to establish a baseline of canopy cover and identify areas where canopy cover can be improved. To catalyze strategic action, the Wolf River Conservancy, in partnership with regional stakeholders, provided input on the status of the urban forest to complement the UTC assessment for forming the Canopy Action Plan.

The Canopy Action Plan identifies factors influencing urban forests: the condition, extent, and health of the urban forests; the community framework, awareness, support, and involvement; and the assessment of resources such as funding, plans, staff, and policies. With assessment of all of urban forestry, a strategic guide for communities and the region to achieve a sustainable urban forest was developed.

The plan’s purpose is to provide the goals and objectives that will help preserve the region’s urban forest for years to come. The following page highlights the results of the 2014 Memphis Regional Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and 2015 Memphis Regional Canopy Action Plan.

TREE CANOPY IN THE REGION

37% Tree Canopy region-wide

Tree and land cover for the study area in the Memphis region was summarized by a variety of geographic scales to provide benchmark data for resource managers, planners, and others in the region.

156,927

Tree canopy comprises 37% (196,513 acres) of the 533,975 acre study area. Of the total study area, 29%

acres Plantable Area region-wide

(156,927 acres) is composed of plantable area, also known as vegetative cover that isn’t classified as agriculture, athletic field, or golf course. 60,870 acres of this plantable area was classified as a priority based on several factors including tree and land cover, demographic, temperature, and parcel data.

980,000 tons of CO2 sequestered/yr

Of the nine municipalities in the study area, Munford has the highest existing canopy percent with 47% but the least amount of canopy area (2,737 acres). The City of Memphis has the highest tree canopy area

saving

$19 million

with 64,864 acres but fell below the municipality average (37%) with a canopy distribution of 31%.

annually

Bartlett has the most available plantable space in terms of its size with 37%.

CANOPY ACTION PLAN

Assessment  Monitor urban forest condition and change with follow up UTC assessment and community tree inventories  Track the benefits of tree canopy and single trees with available technology

The

Management  Proactive management through the development and enforcement of industry standards and ordinances  Pursue local and regional canopy goals using an outreach program specific to zoning classes and priority areas.

Collaboration  Educate and engage the community through communication, trainings, and recognition  Engage the youth through Arbor Day events, volunteer programs, and outdoor education

goals,

strategies,

and

plans

for

implementation were developed through a series of stakeholder discussions and an engaging workshop. By identifying the strengths and opportunities of urban forestry within the region, strategies for mitigating the weaknesses and

threats

were

discovered.

The

CAP

recommends a constant assessment of resources, actively pursuing canopy goals at various scales, and to continue and improve partnerships for a sustainable urban forest.

T

Introduction

In 1819 when Shelby County was founded, the region’s heavily forested land soon began to diminish due to development. Shelby County has more tree cover than other

he Memphis region lies at the northern end of the Mississippi Delta and is split by the Mississippi River, an important resource for the region. Not only is the river

parts of the region but this cover is at risk. As a result of population growth, geography, and transportation routes, the suburban expansion is rapidly filling the gaps between cities.

important environmentally, it controlled development and growth.

This gives rise to a vast metro area with a low-density, swiftly

Other factors effecting settlement were the geographic features of the

changing landscape. As expansion continues, those cities

region. The three tributaries that drain to the Mississippi River are

located in Shelby County within the Memphis metro area will

guided by the existing ridgelines and bluffs. These ridgelines served as

reach maximum growth potential due to surrounding city

the original trails, leading to development and the foundation of the metro cities in the region. Also guiding settlement were the bluffs that serve as a form of flood protection. Unlike areas east of the river, the west shore lacks the bluffs, preventing close settlement for use of the

boundaries, while the remaining cities have the space to grow extensively. This calls for the need for strategic land and resource management to maintain the region’s rich heritage, beautiful landscape, and quality of life.

natural resource1.

1 Memphis Region Sourcebook, http://www.memphisregion.com/getsourcebook.asp

1|Page

The trees and forests of the region’s cities and communities affect the quality of life and wellbeing for every citizen. They continually benefit the region through environmental, social, and economic means. From wildlife habitat to economic gains, trees are a valuable resource for protecting, managing and enhancing the quality of life of the region. “…In August 2013, Memphis became the 500th city in the nation to adopt a Complete Streets policy…the city is now home to more than 70 miles of designated bike lanes.

“Before, the city was geared completely to the automobile,” said Josh Whitehead, Planning Director for Memphis and unincorporated Shelby County. “Now the lanes are narrower and traffic is slower, so it’s not just cyclists who feel more comfortable, but pedestrians as well.” Improving pedestrian safety means more people on the street patronizing businesses.

“There is a growing market share that wants urbanity, and so few neighborhoods in Memphis that have it,” Whitehead said. “I think we are witnessing a supply and demand situation where the neighborhoods that have it or the potential to have it are seeing a rebirth, and hopefully this will start inching into other areas..”

Changing Development Codes to Promote Smart Growth in Memphis: http://www.sustainablecitynetwork.com

Through the development of assessments, strategies, and plans, the communities in the region have shown recognition of the need to comprehensively plan for and manage the constantly changing landscape.

In March 2014, an assessment of the existing tree canopy across the region was completed by the University of Memphis Center for Partnerships in GIS (CPGIS), which is briefly summarized in the next section. The next step is to take the information and findings from the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment document and put them into action. www.seesouthernforests.org

The Memphis Regional Canopy Action Plan (CAP) is intended to be a regional tool that evaluates what resources and actions are needed to achieve these goals and provides guiding recommendations for implementation.

2|Page

BACKGROUND AND PROCESS The road to the Canopy Action Plan began in 2013 as a collaborative effort between the University of Memphis Center for Partnerships in GIS (CPGIS) and the Wolf River Conservancy to produce an Urban Tree Canopy Assessment for the Memphis area, which was funded by a grant from the Tennessee Division of Forestry. The assessment provided a comprehensive view

Assessment Boundaries

of tree canopy in Shelby County and the municipalities of Munford and Atoka in Tipton County,

Study area: Shelby County,

Tennessee. The size of this study area was 804.75 square miles with a population of 954,336,

Atoka, Munford, and their urban

according to 2013 Census estimates.

growth areas

The “top-down” urban tree canopy (UTC) assessment was completed in March 2014 and reported in the 2014 Memphis Regional Urban Tree Canopy Assessment document (available through the Wolf River Conservancy or CPGIS). Aerial photography (2012 National Agricultural Imagery Program) at 1-meter pixel resolution was used as the basis for the UTC assessment as well as 2011 leaf-off Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) remotely sensed imagery. Along with other technology, land cover was classified into tree canopy, other vegetation, bare soil, water, or impervious. Once finalized, the land cover data was used to provide metrics at multiple scales.

The assessment provided an accurate evaluation of canopy cover within a desired boundary. The

Municipalities: Arlington, Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown, Lakeland, Memphis, Millington, Atoka, and Munford Memphis city council districts Urban Growth Boundaries: Munford and Atoka Unincorporated Shelby County

data provided by the assessment provides valuable information for other regional plans as shown in Table 1 of the following section. The table in Appendix A identifies specific objectives in which the UTC assessment and CAP supports.

In partnership with the Wolf River Conservancy, Tennessee Division of Forestry, the communities in the region, various stakeholders, and Plan-It Geo, the tree Canopy Action Plan was developed through a series of analyses, workshops, surveys, and research. A refined analysis of the Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) assessment was completed. Workshops and surveys gained public and stakeholder input as an assessment of the region’s programs’ and identified opportunities for enhancing the urban forest and developing complete urban forest programs.

3|Page

Related Plans and Studies Related Plan 2014 Mid-South Regional Greenprint Plan Connecting Tree Studies to Greenprint Plan – See Appendix A

Greenprint Mapping Tool 2014 Memphis Regional Urban Tree Canopy Assessment

Public Chapter 1101 in 1998 by the Tennessee General Assembly

Plan Objectives The Mid-South Regional Greenprint Plan was initiated when the Shelby County Government received a grant from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant in November of 2011. The Sustainable Communities program strives to invigorate communities through its grant program that focuses on principles of livability. The Greenprint Plan aims to achieve the principle of “value communities and neighborhoods” by establishing a unified vision for a network of greenspace within the region. The region, anchored by the Memphis metropolitan area, consists of five other states including portions of Mississippi, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Illinois, and Alabama. The Greenprint Plan focuses on land use, resource conservation, environmental protection, accessibility, community health and wellness, transportation alternatives, economic development, neighborhood engagement, and social equity. http://www.midsouthgreenprint.org/ In partnership with CPGIS the Greenprint Mapping Tool was developed to allow users to access data “layers” organized by working groups in order to analyze data as part of their activities and create maps. The partners for the 2014 UTC assessment are working towards integration of the data with the tool to allow users to view the existing and potential UTC as well as areas of high priority. https://gis4.memphis.edu/greenprint/ A partnership with the CPGIS and the Wolf River Conservancy created the Urban Tree Canopy assessment for Shelby County and the municipalities of Munford and Atoka in Tipton County, TN. The study created a five-class land cover assessment and identified potential planting areas using a priority analysis. Canopy goals for the entities were established. http://issuu.com/univofmemphis/docs/1314-eng-627_cpgis_tree_canopy_repo The passage of Public Chapter 1101 in 1998 by the Tennessee General Assembly developed a new vision for growth policy in Tennesee. The act provided local governments the structures and policies to cooperatievely evaluate their potential growth throughout a 20-year period, to the year 2020. The law required each city and county to engage in comprehensive land use planning that defined three distinct types of areas: (1) “urban growth boundaries” (UGB) which contain the corporate limits of a municipality and the adjoining area where growth is expected; (2) “planned growth areas” (PGA), compact sections outside incorporated municipalities where growth is expected and where new incorporations may occur; (3) “rural areas” (RA) territory which is to be preserved for agriculture, recreation, forest, wildlife, and other uses other than high-density commercial or residential development. www.shelbycountytn.gov/Index.aspx?NID=398, http://www.tiptonco.com/planning_and_development/index.php , http://www.tiptonco.com/document_center/pd_Growth_Plan.pdf

Table 1. Plans and studies to integrate with the Canopy Action Plan and Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (for additional plans visit http://www.sustainableshelby.com/documentsPlans)

4|Page

Purpose of the Canopy Action Plan In order to manage and enhance urban tree canopy, in the Memphis Region, there needs to be an understanding of the baseline data and current conditions of elements that affect all aspects of urban forests. A thorough assessment of the current conditions and extent of the urban forest identifies the strengths and weaknesses as well as opportunities for future resource management. Factors influencing urban forests include: the condition, extent, and health of the urban forests; the community framework, awareness, support, and involvement; and the assessment of resources such as funding, plans, staff, and policies.

Understanding the status of the urban forest allows the region to determine

FRAMEWORK OF THE

where deficiencies are and determine desired outcomes and goals.

Identifying these gaps in programs, resources, and community allows the

CANOPY ACTION PLAN

region to determine what is needed for a sustainable urban forest. The Canopy Action Plan highlights the areas in need of improvement and outlines strategies for action to reach objectives and goals. It serves as a guide for the region to share and utilize in urban forestry management.

Stable Vegetative Resource: The trees themselves as individuals or forest stands.

Management of the Tree Resource:

The region evaluated the urban forest programs by conducting a workshop

The policy, planning, and resources including staff,

to engage the communities. Community stakeholders provided their input

funding, and tools.

on internal strengths and weaknesses of urban forestry as well as the external weaknesses and threats. With their assessment and desired outcomes identified, integrated strategies for the region to enhance the urban forest were developed.

Strong Community Framework: The way residents and other stakeholders are engaged and interact in planning and caring for trees.

5|Page

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Building on the data, information and findings from the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment, the Wolf River Conservancy and Plan-It Geo conducted a workshop in November 2014 to engage representatives in the affected communities and evaluate existing urban forest programs. Community stakeholders that attended the workshop provided input on internal strengths and weaknesses of urban forestry as well as the external weaknesses and threats. Desired outcomes identified by the group were then integrated into the CAP as strategies and outcomes for the region to use to enhance and protect the urban forest.

The workshop held in November of 2014 identified current assets of the region and examined how the region could capitalized on strengths, minimize weaknesses, collaborate for opportunities, and minimize the impact of threats (SWOT) through a series of surveys and interactive discussion. Sharing of stakeholder experiences and program structure identified opportunities to address the weaknesses and threats faced by the region. The strengths provided by the community members also highlighted case studies the region can adopt and incorporate.

Following the workshop, the project team analyzed the workshop surveys and SWOT matrices to determine commonalities and regional trends. Cross-examining the weaknesses with the opportunities presented goals to achieve a sustainable urban forest and led to the development of strategies to accomplish these goals, which are presented in the Goals and Supporting Strategies section (page 19). The table in Appendix B titled Elements Affecting the Region’s Urban Forest displays the recurring topics that were most discussed for each element of the urban forestry programs.

6|Page

Assessing the Urban Forest For a regional approach in sustainable urban forest management, a baseline assessment is essential for identifying areas with low or inefficient use or availability of resources and to determine goals and strategies. An assessment of the urban forest includes an analysis of the urban forest itself as well as the components affecting it. The results of the assessment and further analyses guide the goals and implementation strategies found further in the Canopy Action Plan.

“If you want to know your past, look into your present conditions. If you

want to know your future, look into your present

The urban forest was assessed at multiple scales to provide meaningful data for various

actions.�

stakeholders within the region. Understanding the existing conditions of the urban forest is a core analysis that guides implementation. This section describes the analyses of urban tree

~Chinese Proverb

canopy and the results from the assessment. For more information on what an urban forest is and the benefits that trees provide, see Appendix C.

7|Page

DEFINING URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENTS This section describes the terms and fields mentioned throughout the Canopy Action Plan and as used in the various studies of the urban tree canopy (UTC). UTC types categorize the landscape so that metrics can be summarized consistently but across different spatial scales for various planning, policy, management and outreach applications.

*Use of this image of land cover classified at a large scale by CPGIS is for illustration purposes only

8|Page

Terminology

Land Cover Classes

The land cover classes described in the illustration on the previous

Canopy

Other Vegetation

Water

Bare Soil

Impervious

page were grouped into “UTC Assessment Types” for the study.

These terms are the UTC assessment metrics analyzed and used throughout the plan. The following page illustrates the geographic boundaries assessed for these UTC types.

UTC Assessment Types as defined by CPGIS: Existing UTC

Other Vegetation

Unsuitable Areas

comprises forests

areas are the grass

are classified as

and individual

and open space

“Other Vegetation”

where tree canopy

but identified as

and mapped from

does not exist and

agriculture, golf

above.

it is biophysically

course, athletic

possible to plant

field, or power line

trees.

easement areas.

trees when viewed

“Priority Planting Areas” Considering the socioeconomic and environmental factors, a prioritization score is derived from the “Other Vegetation” land cover class. The prioritization attributes were collected at the Census Block Group level. After block groups were prioritized, parcels within the block groups were ranked based on the zoning type. Full documentation can be found in the 2014 Memphis Regional Urban Tree Canopy Assessment.

“Potential UTC” Potential UTC is a layer of “Other Vegetation” areas that are not classified as agriculture, golf course, athletic field, or power line easement areas

UTC Assessment Boundaries

according to parcel data.

9|Page

“Study Boundaries�

Assessing canopy cover across different geographic boundaries provides a link to where we live, work, play, and set policies impacting overall tree canopy and the benefits. Metrics for UTC Assessment Types on the previous page were assessed for the GIS boundaries below.

These summaries provide benchmark data for resource managers, planners, and others in the Memphis region at different spatial scales.

Table 2. Urban Tree Canopy Assessment boundaries Boundary

Number of Features

Description

Study Area

1

Shelby County and the municipalities of Atoka and Munford including Urban Growth Areas

Municipalities

9

All 7 communities in Shelby County and 2 in Tipton County

Urban Growth Areas

2

Growth boundaries as identified from the Tipton County Growth Plan

7 Memphis City Council Districts

Map

Divisions within the Memphis boundary for representative, electoral, or administrative purposes *Note: Additional boundaries summarized during finer analysis

10 | P a g e

STATE OF THE CANOPY Trees have flourished in the region long before settlement, but over time those trees have been cleared for farming and development. While there are many efforts to reclaim those lost forests and increase canopy in urban areas, one cannot measure progress without a baseline study.

The study analyzed all developed and undeveloped land and water within the region. In this section, the data is summarized by key geographic boundaries for supporting stakeholder decisions, goal setting, and implementation.

Using the Urban Tree Canopy assessment from the University of Memphis Center for Partnerships in GIS (CPGIS), a snapshot is given of the current conditions of the canopy. For goal setting and strategies, the Canopy Action Plan included a refined analysis of the data to guide the region into action.

“To exist as a nation, to prosper as a state, and to

The following UTC results are from studies done by

live as a people, we must have trees.�

CPGIS as well as Plan-It Geo.

~Theodore Roosevelt

11 | P a g e

Study Area

Figure 1. Tree and land cover metrics for the study area

The study area encompasses 533,975 acres including water defined by the county limits and urban growth areas of Munford and Atoka.

Tree Canopy covers 196,513 acres, or 37% of the study area. Of the 215,510 acres (40%) of Other Vegetation, 156,927 acres are classified as Potential UTC, making up 29% of the study area. 15% of the study area is comprised of Impervious, covering 81,138 acres. Water covers 22,420 acres (4%) and the study area is comprised of 18,393 acres or 3% bare soil.

The 62,856 priority parcels within the study area have a total of 60,870 acres of plantable space. Every parcel identified as “highest priority� with more than an acre of plantable space is classified as a school or park, as defined by the parcel data (Figure 2).

Among the boundaries within the study area, unincorporated areas contribute the most canopy to the study area with 41% and Urban Growth Areas contribute the least with 4%.

Highest Priority Parcels with >1 acre of plantable space

Municipalities Council Districts

41%

Urban Growth Areas Unincorporated Areas

21%

33% 4% Figure 3. Distribution of canopy by assessment boundaries

Figure 2. Map of the highest priority parcels with more than an acre of plantable space

12 | P a g e

Municipalities Summary Of the nine municipalities, Munford has the highest Tree Canopy percentage of 47% or 2,737 acres but has the least total canopy area.

Memphis has the highest Tree Canopy area with 64,864 total acres.

Millington has the lowest percentage of Tree Canopy at 22% but has the highest percentage classified as Other Vegetation with 62% or 11,512 acres. Germantown has the lowest area classified as Other Vegetation with 36% or 4,514 acres.

From the CPGIS UTC assessment, Potential UTC was identified by excluding Other Vegetation area that would not be preferable areas for planting (e.g. golf course). Of the nine municipalities, Bartlett has the highest percent of Potential UTC with 37% or 6,512 acres. Lakeland has the lowest Potential UTC compared to its overall land area with 25% or 3,787 acres. Munford has the least amount of Potential UTC with 1,721 acres and Memphis has the highest with 66,501 acres.

100

40%

90

35%

Percent

80 70

30%

60

25%

50

20%

40 15%

30 20

10%

10

5%

0

Tree Canopy %

0%

Other Vegetation %

Bare Soil %

Water %

Figure 4. Tree and land cover metrics for each municipality

Impervious % Figure 5. Potential UTC within each municipality

13 | P a g e

Census block groups were used in Shelby County to prioritize areas for tree planting by CPGIS (as described in the Defining Urban Tree CanopyAssessments section). The parcels associated with the priority areas were identified. To assist with implementation of the Canopy Action Plan, a finer analysis was conducted. First, all three priorities (medium, high, highest) were tallied within the municipality by parcel. For example, Arlington has 64 parcels rated as “highest”

Table 3. Summary of Potential UTC within Priority Parcels and Total Potential UTC Acres by Municipality and Unincorporated Areas Priority Parcel Count

Priority Plantable Acres

42

184

17,365

1,434

252

12,596

661

339

15,238

Collierville

3,564

1,357

23,099

Arlington

4,783

3,419

14,740

Millington

3,933

6,077

18,611

Unincorporated

9,804

19,919

56,208

Memphis

38,635

29,323

66,041

Munford

n/a*

n/a*

5,874

Atoka

n/a*

n/a*

7,594

Municipality

Bartlett

Total Potential UTC Acres

priority. Second, the plantable space within each priority was summed. For example, Arlington has 352 acres of plantable space in

Germantown

the “highest” priority parcels. Then, the number of parcels in each “Class” were tallied and summed by priority group. Lastly, the plantable space was tallied and summed by priority group for each

Lakeland

“Class”. “Class” is a high-level zoning classification identified in the parcel data. These analyses allow communities to prioritize efforts and develop strategies specific to the type of land use or zoning classification. The summaries for the number of parcels by priority group and plantable space are available for each municipality and unincorporated areas are found in Appendix F.

TOTAL

62,856

60,870

237,366

*Munford and Atoka parcels were excluded from the prioritization process by CPGIS, although US Block Group UTC data is available.

Figure 6. Example of summaries found in Appendix F.

14 | P a g e

Unincorporated Areas Summary The Unincorporated Areas within the study area are an important geography to summarize due to the large contribution of Tree Canopy (42%) to the entire region. 44% of the Unincorporated Area is Other Vegetation with 56,208 acres of that land cover classified as Potential UTC. These acres contribute 36% of the Potential UTC to the entire study area.

Figure 7. UTC metrics for the Unincorporated Areas

Figure 8. Unincorporated Areas within the study area

15 | P a g e

Urban Growth Areas The urban growth areas (UGA) of Munford and Atoka in Tipton

Potential UTC was identified for the two UGA’s based on

County were assessed using the same standards as other

Other Vegetation that excludes areas that are not preferable

boundaries. Munford’s UGA total area is 10,509 acres and Atoka’s

for tree plantings (e.g. golf courses). Munford’s UGA has

UGA total is 7,592 acres, including water. Munford’s UGA is

16% (1,670 acres) of its land available for tree planting and

covered with 51% Tree Canopy while Atoka’s UGA has 39%.

Atoka’s UGA has 20% (1,500 acres) available for tree

Atoka’s UGA has a higher percentage of land cover classified as

planting.

Other Vegetation with 54% and Munford’s UGA has 41%, though they each have about the same acres of Other Vegetation with 4,154 acres and 4,349 acres, respectively. 2% of Munford’s UGA land area is covered with impervious and Atoka’s UGA is covered with 2.6% impervious area; each with approximately 200 acres.

These metrics were derived from the total land acres (excluding

Potential UTC

water) and can be viewed in Figure 9.

Existing UTC

100% 90% 80% 70% Impervious %

60%

Water %

50%

Bare Soil %

40% 30% 20%

Other Vegetation % Canopy %

50.71%

10% 0% Munford

Atoka

Figure 9. UTC metrics for the Urban Growth Areas of Munford and Atoka

Figure 10. Potential UTC in the Urban Growth Areas

16 | P a g e

Munford and Atoka Block Groups Summary UTC metrics by US Census Block Groups (BG) were made available from the Assessment but not initially summarized. Understanding the existing conditions helps to enable the communities of Munford and Atoka as well as adjacent communities plan for urban growth.

The BG’s have a relatively high percentage of existing Tree Canopy ranging from 37% in BG 2 of Census Tract (CT) 403.02 to 60% in BG 1, CT 403.04. Table 6 displays the UTC metrics for each of the BG’s and are ranked from highest existing Tree Canopy percent to lowest. A threshold of 40% is identified in the table by the different shades of the table cells. Using the data from CPGIS, the BG’s identified as a Priority Planting Area were noted in the table as well and range from 38% Tree Canopy cover to 46%. The total area of these BG’s in Tipton County have Figure 11. Block Groups of Tipton County, TN within the study area

44% Tree Canopy (14,014 ac) and 47% Other Vegetation (14,672 ac).

Table 4. UTC metrics for the Block Groups of Tipton County, TN within study area Block Group ID BG 1, CT 403.04 BG 1, CT 405 BG 3, CT 403.04 BG 2, CT 403.03 BG 3, CT 403.03 BG 1, CT 403.02 BG 2, CT 405 BG 1, CT 403.03 BG 2, CT 403.04 BG 2, CT 408 BG 2, CT 403.02

Tree Canopy (%) 60% 59% 56% 55% 46% 41% 40% 39% 38% 38% 37%

Other Vegetation (%) 36% 35% 36% 34% 38% 47% 53% 52% 52% 58% 50%

Bare Soil (%) 1% 0.3% 2% 2% 10% 4% 3% 5% 6% 1% 4%

Water (%) 1% 0.5% 0.5% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Impervious (%) 2% 5% 5% 8% 6% 7% 3% 4% 2% 2% 9%

Priority Planting Area?

No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No

17 | P a g e

Memphis City Council Districts The Memphis City Council Districts make up 208,702 acres of the study area. Land and tree cover metrics were summarized for each council district and as a whole. The entire city council district study area is comprised of 31% (65,660 acres) Tree Canopy and 34% (69,926 acres) of the land area is classified as Other Vegetation. The area is covered with 55,980 (27%) acres of impervious (see Figure 12).

Of all the council districts, Districts 1 and 5 have the most Tree Canopy (40%) compared to its total area while District 3 has the

Figure 12. UTC metrics for the City Council Districts of Memphis

least amount of Tree Canopy with 22%. District 6 has the most acres of canopy (18,373 acres) but has the third lowest percentage (29%) compared to its overall area. District 3 has the lowest

45

percent of Tree Canopy (22%) and the highest percent of

40

impervious (43%). District 6 has the highest percent of Other

35

Vegetation with 36%.

30 Percent

100

Percent

80 60

25 20 15

40

10

20

5

0

0 1

Tree Canopy %

2

3

4 5 Council District

Other Vegetation %

Bare Soil %

6

Water %

Figure 13. Tree and land cover metrics for each City Council District

7

Impervious %

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Council District Figure 14. Potential UTC within each City Council District

18 | P a g e

Goals and Supporting Strategies This section identifies the goals and specific actions needed to enhance the urban forest for the region and within the communities. A thorough assessment of the canopy identified the needs for a sustainable urban forest.

Within this section are summaries of the canopy goals and priority planting areas established in the 2014 Memphis Regional Urban Tree Canopy Assessment. Additional analyses were conducted to identify acres of tree canopy required to increase cover on the priority planting areas.

Using the data from the Assessment and the stakeholder workshop, the goals for the region are outlined in the following section. These goals contain strategies that will assist in implementation found on page 28.

19 | P a g e

CANOPY GOALS The 2014 Memphis Regional Urban Tree Canopy Assessment conducted by the University of Memphis Center for Partnerships in GIS identified

Table 5. Number of Acres to Reach Canopy Goal for Each City Council District City Council District

Existing Canopy %

Target Canopy %

Additional Canopy Acres Needed

The goals were established numerically based on the existing tree

1

40

37

0

canopy percent and the 75th percentile rule. In other words, of all the

2

34

37

283

municipalities, 75% of them were below a certain threshold. The

3

22

37

1,046

4

27

37

454

5

40

37

0

6

29

37

1,449

7

34

37

235

canopy goals for each of the communities and city council districts.

difference in existing tree canopy and the threshold determines the acres of canopy needed. This approach offers general guidance for an th

attainable goal. However, while the 75 percentile method provided general targets of what would be feasible in the region, it did not

TOTAL

3,467

provide specific guidance for implementation. For the Canopy Action Plan, a more detailed analysis of the UTC data and current urban forestry programs was needed to develop localized strategies for achieving canopy goals and a sustainable urban forest for the Memphis region.

The figures to the right show the target canopy goals for the City Council Districts (Table 5) and municipalities (Table 6). Memphis City Council District 7 needs 235 acres of new canopy to reach the 37% target while District 6 needs 1,449 acres to reach the canopy goal. For the municipalities, the “acres needed� range from 60 for Germantown to 834 for Millington.

Table 6. Number of Acres to Reach Canopy Goal for Each Municipality Municipality

Existing Canopy %

Target Canopy %

Additional Canopy Acres Needed

Arlington

39

42

205

Atoka

40

42

84

Bartlett Collierville

36 34

42 42

377 682

Germantown

41

42

60

Lakeland

46

42

0

Millington

22

42

834

Munford

47

42

0

Unincorporated TOTAL

42

n/a

n/a 2,242

*Goals were not established for Unincorporated Areas

2,242

20 | P a g e

PRIORITY PLANTING AREAS The Canopy Action Plan provides guidance and strategies for the entire region, using the priority areas identified in the Assessment document. To assist in implementation, further analysis was completed to determine the canopy increase that would result from fully planting the eligible acreage (plantable areas) in the medium, high, and highest priority areas (Table 7).

This analysis determined that Memphis, unincorporated areas, and Millington have the highest total plantable acres within their priority areas with 29,323 acres, 19,919 acres, and 6,077 acres, respectively. Millington would see the largest increase in canopy cover (+33%) if all priority planting areas were planted to full capacity. Memphis would have the greatest impact on its overall Potential UTC (44%) if planted to full capacity. Additional guidance for planting in priority areas and by Zoning Class can be found in Appendix F and G. Table 7. Canopy added by fully planting all 3 priority planting areas

Municipality Germantown Bartlett Collierville Arlington Lakeland Memphis Millington Unincorporated* TOTAL

Total Plantable Acres of the Three Priorities

Existing Canopy %

Future Canopy %

Potential UTC (ac)

Percent of Potential UTC Implemented with All Priorities Planted Out

252 184 1,357 3,419 339 29,323 6,077 19,919 60,870

41% 36% 34% 39% 46% 31% 22% 42%

43% 37% 39% 62% 48% 45% 55% 52%

12,596 17,365 23,099 14,740 15,238 66,041 18,611 122,709 290,399

2% 1% 6% 23% 2% 44% 33% 16%

Note: Munford and Atoka do not have priority areas defined.

21 | P a g e

Goals

Objectives

GOALS & STRATEGIES FOR ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, & COLLABORATION In order to reach the established canopy goals, continued effort in assessment, management, and collaboration is required across the Memphis region. For a sustainable urban forest, goals in assessment need to be achieved to outline the steps for management. Effective

Strategies

management requires collaboration. The urban tree canopy is an asset that needs to be appreciated and owned by the entire community so that the necessary advocacy and support of the urban tree canopy and implementation of the Canopy Action Plan will

Implementation

take place.

The following sections outline the goals, objectives, and strategies in the categories of Assessment, Management, and Collaboration.

“Urban trees and forests are considered integral to the sustainability of cities as a whole. Yet, sustainable urban forests are not born, they are made. They do not arise at random, but result from a community-wide commitment to their creation

These goals, objectives, and strategies were developed with community stakeholder input, gathered primarily through the November 2014 workshop but also through subsequent meetings and communication with the West Tennessee Urban Forestry Council and the Memphis Tree Board.

and management.� ~Clark et al: Urban Forest Sustainability 22 | P a g e

Assessment

Goal: Monitor and track characteristics and changes in the region’s urban forest Objective: Evaluate the changes of canopy cover and trees by performing incremental assessments such as canopy analyses and tree inventories.

Strategies:  Conduct regional or localized canopy assessments in incremental years and detect changes in canopy cover.  Utilize additional planning layers to identify correlations between losses.  Perform periodic tree inventories and keep the data current.  Make the data readily available using a web mapping service to track trees and canopy cover changes.

Objective: Monitor changes in urban forests related to land use change and development.

Strategies:  Perform periodic canopy assessments to track changes in canopy cover.  Identify the cause(s) of gains or losses of tree canopy to understand the trends.  Identify areas for conservation and preservation on a large and local scale.  Develop a protocol for monitoring trees planted and removed on public and private property.  Integrate the UTC assessment with the Greenprint tool for community awareness and engagement.

Objective: Track the benefits of tree canopy and single trees.

Strategies:  Utilize research and technology to identify species characteristics and health.

*Colorado statewide tree inventory management software application

 Quantify the benefits that the trees provide using the technological resources and research.

23 | P a g e

Management

Goal: Improve the urban forest by becoming more proactive Objective: Ensure the staff capacity is at a level capable of

Objective: Ensure proper tree planting and maintenance

managing the public’s urban forest.

practices are used and the benefits of trees are maximized.

Strategies:  If there is no urban forestry staff, provide trainings to the

Strategies:  Use tree inventories and the public to determine tree

responsible department through garden clubs and campuses or through the Western Chapter of the Tennessee Urban Forestry Council.  If capacity is below standards, create a citizen stewards program.  Monitor and improve staffing, roles, and workload.  Compile and evaluate all known community tree ordinances.

maintenance needs to ensure tree and public health.  Maintain the tree inventory by tracking planting and maintenance practices.  Use the tree inventory for developing a comprehensive maintenance program that creates a manageable cycle.  Define and implement proper tree planting, maintenance, nursery standards, and a recommended tree species list that

Objective: Seek dedicated funding and resources for the program.

Strategies:  Identify services where departments can collaborate or work

is site specific.  Coordinate an approach to seek grant funding from a variety of opportunities using non-traditional partners.

jointly.  Use the canopy data and tree benefits to educate citizens and stakeholders on the benefits of trees to build support.

“Tree Topping Prohibited: The practice of tree topping is prohibited on all public trees…and is discouraged as a tree care practice for trees on single-family residential lots.” Bartlett, TN Tree Care Ordinance

 Educate citizens on the value of tree stewardship.

24 | P a g e

Goal: Encourage tree planting while preserving and protecting existing trees Objective: Strategically plant and maintain trees to enhance the urban forest in a balanced approach.

Strategies:  Outreach to the properties with the highest priority, most land area, and tree cover for preservation.  Outreach to the properties with the highest priority, lowest tree cover, and greatest land area on the benefits of trees.  Outreach to the park and school properties (Class E).

“Minimum Tree Density

 Allocate resources for balanced planting and maintenance based on tree inventories and low UTC.

Requirements: ...all

 In the highest UTC priority areas, use innovative programs for property owners to plant trees.

applicable sites maintain a

 Develop programs to limit and remove non-native invasive plant species.

minimum tree density of twenty units (basal area) per acre.”

Objective: Develop a standard that maintains the existing canopy through practical guidelines.

Lakeland Tree Ordinance

Strategies:  Review ordinances to identify deficiencies and revise according to sustainable urban forestry standards.

Section 13-405

 Working with other departments, set requirements for trees at parking lots and development sites.  Include and educate citizens when decisions are made. Voluntary compliance with tree ordinances is likely to be improved if citizens understand and agree with the management approaches implemented through the ordinance  Attend project proposals and reviews and actively pursue a role in department decisions.  Form a directive that requires urban tree canopy to be maintained or restored on all city projects.  Develop pilot projects integrating trees into the design that are an example to showcase.  Use the tree canopy assessment results to encourage investment in forest monitoring, maintenance, and management.  Develop targeted presentations for city leaders, planners, engineers, resource managers, and the public on the benefits of trees.

25 | P a g e

Goal: Pursue canopy goals regionally and at a local level Objective: Pursue attainable canopy goals at various scales and incremental years that coincide with other goals from the plan.

Strategies:  Stem the loss of canopy and consider a no net loss policy.

Did you know that more than

 Develop strategies to plant trees for energy efficiency.

30,000 hours of volunteer service

o Use i-Tree Design (http://www.itreetools.org/design.php) for site-specific benefit analysis and consider the Arbor Day Foundation’s “Energy Saving Trees” program.

are performed at Shelby Farms Park each year?

 Establish and pursue canopy and tree planting goals on public property and rights-of-way.

With 4,500 acres of parkland and 6.5 miles of

 Establish and pursue canopy and tree planting goals by:

urban trail, we rely on thousands of volunteers

o Zoning Class – use Appendix F and G and UTC data to develop canopy goals and strategies by Zoning Class and priority o Municipality – develop achievable short and long term goals based on Zoning Class strategies

each year to keep Shelby Farms Park + Shelby Farms Greenline clean, green and safe.

Volunteers are at the heart of what we do, and we've got opportunities to fit your schedule and interests.

o Watershed – determine impact of municipal canopy goals on watersheds o Region – determine impact of all canopy goals on the region and develop landscape scale partnerships to assist in achieving regional goals.  Continue to support the Shelby Farms Park Conservancy’s one million tree initiative o Using the networks of stakeholders, create awareness of tree planting opportunities in the park.

Shelby Farms Park Conservancy plans to plant one million trees to enhance wildlife corridors within the Park. www.shelbyfarmspark.org

26 | P a g e

Collaboration

Goal: Educate and engage all members of the community Objective: Encourage partnerships among the community, businesses, and government for managing the urban forest.

Strategies:  Develop an outreach and education plan that aligns with the goals established in this plan with clear targets and measurable results.  Provide technical assistance and training to target audiences.  Develop incentives and a recognition program for practices and contributions supporting a sustainable urban forest.  Formalize and maintain partnerships with utility agencies.  Partner with nurseries and the landscape industry to discourage the sale of non-native invasive plant species.  Create opportunities for communication with identified partners.  Develop and share an annual report card with broad stakeholders to continue to engage, inform, and recommend actions.

“The Environmental Awards Program: The City of Lakeland has established the

 Using the canopy data, focus outreach on underserved areas where the need for trees is the greatest.

program to evaluate and

 Educate the public on the importance of limiting the use of non-native invasive plant species.

recognize the efforts of all those whose work has

Objective: Engage the youth in interactive education and learning experiences.

Strategies:  Celebrate events such as Arbor Day and create school poster contests relating to trees.

improved our environment.”

Lakeland Natural Resources Department

 Involve school volunteers for tree plantings.  Encourage outdoor education.

27 | P a g e

Implementation Table 8. Implementation of Assessment Goals Strategy

Tracking and Evaluation

Priority

Monitor and track characteristics and changes in the region’s urban forest Conduct regional or localized canopy assessments in incremental years and reassess

Plan for funding for a 5 year update of the 2012 UTC assessment. Reevaluate the region’s progress in sustainable urban forestry and update the Canopy Action Plan

3-4 year priority

Perform periodic tree inventories and keep the data current

Yearly review of tree inventory data, keeping it current and active.

2 year priority if no inventory Ongoing if inventory available

2 year priority

Make the data readily available using a web mapping service to track trees and canopy cover changes

Engage the public in adding their data to the service for better understanding of the canopy changes.

Year 1 – Track with inventory Year 2 – Web mapping service is utilized

2-3 year priority

Identify the cause(s) of gains or losses of tree canopy

Understanding of the causal agents of canopy change enables region for proactive management.

Year 1 – Develop plan to spot survey, Year 2 – Track data, Year 3 – Analyze results

3 year priority

Identify areas for conservation and preservation on a large and local scale

Identifying areas will complement the Greenprint Plan and may be an avenue for funding.

Year 1 – identify the tracts. Year 2-3 engage property owner

3 year priority

Develop a protocol for monitoring trees planted and removed on public and private property

In order to increase canopy, an tracking of the gains and losses of canopy is needed.

Year 1 – develop plan for tracking Year 2 – Staff involved with site plan review process

2 year priority

Integrate the UTC assessment with the Greenprint tool for community awareness and engagement

Integrate conservation efforts by utilizing the Greenprint tool which may offer insight on canopy changes occurring.

Year 1 – Data is integrated with the tool Year 2 – Staff monitors UTC activity and keeps it updated

2 year priority

Quantify the benefits that the trees provide

Use technology and research available to measure and quantify benefits, tree characteristics, and health.

Year 2 – Full inventory or sample if no inventory available Year 3 and 4 – Quantify benefits and record tree characteristics

1-5 year priority

28 | P a g e

Table 9. Implementation of Management Goals Strategy

Tracking and Evaluation

Priority

Improve the forest by becoming more proactive If there is no urban forestry staff, provide trainings to the responsible department through garden clubs and campuses If capacity is below standards, create a citizen stewards program Identify services where departments can collaborate or work jointly

Some communities in the region have no urban forestry staff. Work with clubs and campuses to provide free trainings and encourage stewardship.

Year 1 – develop training module Year 2 – provide trainings while seeking volunteers/leadership Use models from other communities on how to create and manage a citizen stewards program.

Year 1 – research and develop strategy Year 2 – recruit and continue to build Regularly meet with other departments related to management of the urban forest resource.

Ongoing

Ongoing

1-2 year priority

Compile and evaluate all known community tree care ordinances

Gather all tree ordinances and evaluate for efficiencies and gaps and provide guidance for improvement so that they may serve as benchmarks.

Use the canopy data and tree benefits to educate citizens and stakeholders on the benefits of trees to build support

Create awareness and need by using the UTC data to highlight areas of need and also explain the benefits of trees based on the stakeholder’s field of interest.

Use tree inventories and the public to determine tree maintenance needs and cycles to ensure tree and public health

A program will not gain support if tree hazards are not mitigated and public health is put at risk. Use the inventory data to address immediate risks and hire an International Society of Arboriculture’s Certified Arborist.

1 year priority

Define tree nursery standards, proper tree planting and maintenance standards, and develop a recommended tree species list that is site specific.

In order for a program to advance in a sustainable manner, industry standards must be defined and enacted. Use local examples as guidance.

3 year priority

1 year priority 1 year priority

Encourage tree planting while preserving and protecting existing trees Strategically plant and maintain trees to enhance the urban forest in a balanced approach

Use the tree canopy and tree inventory data to prioritize efforts, identify risks, and focus outreach. Develop programs to limit and remove non-native invasive species.

Year 1 – prioritize based on program. Year 2 – actively engage

Ongoing

Pursue canopy goals regionally and at a local level Pursue incremental attainable canopy goals that coincide with other plan goals on all scales

Follow guidance written in the Goals and Strategies section and tailor to each communities needs on various scales. Use Appendix G as additional guidance.

Year 1 – develop localized canopy goals Year 2 – begin implementation

Ongoing

29 | P a g e

Table 10. Implementation of Collaboration Goals Strategy

Tracking and Evaluation

Priority

Educate and engage all members of the community Develop an outreach and education plan that aligns with the goals established in this plan with clear targets and measurable results

Review the priorities for implementing strategies and gauge community need to develop a plan for outreach and education. Track and monitor effectiveness of the plan and adjust accordingly.

1 year priority

Provide technical assistance and training to target audiences

Provide technical assistance in site plan reviews and offer trainings in relation to urban forest resources.

3-5 year priority

Incentivize stewardship through recognition and awards

3-5 year priority

Partner with utility agencies, nurseries, and the landscape industry

Partnerships with the utility agencies open opportunities to collaborate and remedy tree and line issues. Setting nursery standards and building partnerships with reputable nurseries ensures no non-native invasives are planted on public land.

Inform the landscape industry of community standards which are recommended for private property.

1-2 year priority

Create opportunities for communication with identified partners

Ensure collaboration through open dialogue and continued discussions on goals, projects, opportunities, and concerns

1-2 year priority

Develop and share an annual report card with broad stakeholders to continue to engage, inform, and recommend actions

Highlight program successes as well as insufficiencies to gain awareness, understanding, and support Year 1 – develop report outline Year 2 – provide report to stakeholders and citizens

Ongoing

Identify focus areas within the community that will create a spotlight for the program on making a change in an underserved area. Continue in efforts of equity of canopy.

Year 1 – identify priorities Year 2 - implement

Ongoing

Celebrate Arbor Day with poster contests and tree plantings that involve local students. Encourage outdoor recreation. Involving the youth often involves the adult(s) which increases awareness.

Year 1 – develop a plan with assistance from communities within the region active in Arbor Day and youth programs such as the 4-H Forestry Team.

Ongoing

Develop incentives and a recognition program for practices and contributions supporting a sustainable urban forest

Using the canopy data, focus outreach on underserved areas where the need for trees is the greatest

Engage the youth in interactive education and learning experiences

30 | P a g e

31 | P a g e

Appendices A. Integrating Tree Studies with Greenprint – how the CAP and UTC complements other studies B. Highlights from the SWOT Workshop – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats

to the region’s urban forest

C. Benefits of Urban Forests – the definition of an urban forest and a description of benefits that urban trees provide D. Additional Resources for the Region – provides links to resources for urban forest management E. Public Assessment and Engagement – results of a survey taken at the stakeholder workshop F. Charts Summarizing Priority Planting Areas – Zoning Class UTC data for municipalities to use in setting canopy goals G.Priority Parcel Summaries by Municipality – priority planting area data summarized in tables

32 | P a g e

APPENDIX A. INTEGRATING TREE STUDIES WITH GREENPRINT Greenprint Objective

The Objective Defined

Objective 1.1

Expand and improve a network of green space hubs linked by greenways and trails.

Objective 1.2

Improve the access and use of existing parks and green spaces for the benefit of people and wildlife.

Objective 5.2

Ensure neighborhood access to green spaces.

Relating to the CAP and Assessment The UTC assessment identifies available planting space and the CAP guides implementation.

The UTC assessment identifies available planting space and the CAP guides implementation.

The UTC assessment helps to locate available planting space to create green corridors to green spaces.

The CAP provides goals and strategies as well as recommendations for developing incentives and regulations. The tree canopy data can serve as a baseline of canopy to maintain during projects.

5.2.4

Develop incentives and regulations encouraging housing developers to incorporate green space (or open space conservation), links/access to green space, and LID, in their projects.

5.2.7

Improve pedestrian comfort through traffic calming, well-designed streets, and low-impact development practices.

Preserving and enhancing canopy during lowimpact development and along sidewalks improves pedestrian comfort.

Objective 5.4

Spur (re)development of neighborhoods that are clean, attractive and convenient to a wide range of community facilities. Incentivize or require LID for onsite stormwater management.

The CAP guides communities towards a sustainable urban forestry program that includes tree planting which is a natural form of stormwater management.

Objective 6.1

Conserve and protect natural resources including air, water and land. Develop policies and actions to restore surface waters, improve water quality and in-stream habitat and better sustainable stormwater and watershed management practices.

Measure and communicate the economic benefits of green infrastructure and an ecologically sensitive approach to planning and development.

The UTC assessment identifies priority areas for planting trees in floodplains which will assist in improving water quality. The CAP provides guidance for policies and actions.

6.1.5

The UTC data can be utilized to provide estimates of the ecosystem benefits that trees provide.

I|Page

APPENDIX B. HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SWOT WORKSHOP

Elements Affecting the Region’s Urban Forest Urban Forest Element

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

Vegetative Resource

1. Mature canopy 2. Diversity 3. Fall foliage

1. Wrong tree planted at the site 2. Trees that are removed are not replaced 3. Fragmented forests

1. Available planting space 2. Mid-South Regional Greenprint Plan 3. Education and advocacy

1. Invasives 2. Pests and diseases 3. Urban sprawl

Community Framework

1. Many tree related organizations 2. Increasing awareness of tree benefits 3. Active communities

1. Volunteer coordination or lack of volunteers 2. Lack of communication 3. Missed opportunities for partnerships with organizations sharing similar goals

1. Increasing number of organizations 2. Educate developers 3. School gardens for educating

1. Lack of tree education 2. Socio-economic issues 3. Development regulations

Resource Management

1. UTC and Greenprint study 2. Educational resources 3. Growing use of tools and technology for management

1. Tree ordinances and enforcement 2. Weak inter-departmental cooperation 3. Funding

1. UTC data to support and enforce development policies 2. UTC data to prioritize work and outreach 3. Trees for stormwater management

1. Budget cuts and funding 2. Allocation of funding 3. Urban sprawl creates change in previous management

II | P a g e

APPENDIX C. BENEFITS OF URBAN FORESTS When one thinks of assets to a community often buildings and land are the first to be considered. They may include community centers, sports facilities, schools, and churches. But, they may also be a person or a service such as a recycling program. An asset is anything that is capable of generating a profit that can be reinvested to benefit the city. Due to recent research and technology, trees can now be assigned a monetary value. Their structure and physiology generate value, savings, and profit. All trees in the urban forest, whether it be in a park, along a street, or in a parking lot, provide many important ecological services. Trees impact the community, environment, and economy.

These benefits call for the need for trees to be treated as vital city infrastructure that impact the quality of life and the environment.

Increase

Habitat for

property

wildlife

values

Reduce heat island effect

Improve air

Reduce

Reduce

quality

energy use

stormwater runoff

Provide shade

Sense of Wellbeing

III | P a g e

THE “URBAN FOREST” The term “urban forest” is used throughout the plan and

refers to the trees and vegetation found in cities across the Memphis region. The collection of this vegetation creates an ecosystem within an urban environment where large populations and the resource coexist. By thinking of trees in urban areas as an ecosystem, a city can plan and manage

1

2

2

them by integrating best practices in a holistic approach.

Most often appearing as a result of people, these trees serve as a resource that should be treated as an asset and part of the community infrastructure. It’s in this way that communities can experience all of the benefits that trees provide.

1

3

4

STREET TREES

Healthy, large canopy trees are one of the core elements to an urban forest.

2

PARK TREES

Parks and open space provide large patches of canopy cover giving the urban forest many benefits.

2

3 PRIVATE TREES

Front and backyard trees on private property make up the majority of the urban forest.

5

5

6

WOODLOTS

Woodlots throughout Shelby County contribute to the urban forest and its benefits.

4

GREEN DESIGN

Other vegetation in green design add elements to the urban forest ecosystem.

6 URBAN STREAMS

Urban streams and the riparian areas offer opportunities for tree planting.

2

IV | P a g e

BENEFITS OF URBAN FORESTS

Environmental Air quality: Trees absorb, trap, offset and hold air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and CO2.

Water quality and stormwater runoff mitigation: Soil aeration, evapotranspiration, and rainfall interception by trees increases water quality and reduces stormwater flow.

Erosion control: Tree roots hold soil together along stream banks and steep slopes.

Increased wildlife habitat: Promotes biodiversity in urban areas.

Social

Economic

Public health: Trees help reduce asthma rates and reduce UV-B exposure by about 50%.

Property value: Residential homes with healthy trees add property value (up to 15%).

Crime and domestic violence: Urban forests help build stronger communities. Nature and trees provide settings in which relationships grow stronger and violence is reduced.

Noise pollution: Trees reduce noise pollution by acting as a buffer and absorbing up to 50% of urban noise (U.S. Department of Energy study).

Energy conservation: Trees lower energy demand through summer shade and winter wind block, additionally offsetting carbon emissions at the power plant.

Stormwater facilities: Trees and forests reduce the need for or size of costly gray infrastructure.

V|Page

APPENDIX D. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR THE REGION Tree ordinance guidelines: http://www.isa-arbor.com/education/resources/educ_TreeOrdinanceGuidelines.pdf

Trees and development guidelines: http://www.a2gov.org/departments/field-operations/forestry/Pages/StreetTreesDevelopment.aspx Municipal urban forestry staff: https://www2.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry-2.pdf Tree boards: http://www.tufc.com/pdfs/treeboard_handbook.pdf Urban Watershed Forestry Management: http://www.forestsforwatersheds.org/ Funding sources: http://actrees.org/resources/tools-for-nonprofits/fundraising-tools-for-nonprofits/ Trees as green infrastructure best management practices: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/stormwater2streettrees.pdf Valuing tree benefits: www.itreetools.org Information on urban tree canopy assessments (UTC): www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/ Private property tree program: http://treebaltimore.org/get-a-free-tree/ Tree inventory tools: www.planitgeo.com Tennessee Urban Forestry Council: http://www.tufc.com/ Wolf River Conservancy: www.wolfriver.org (UTC assessment, CAP, and Community UTC Fact Sheets available) Tennessee Division of Forestry: http://www.tn.gov/agriculture/forestry/ Mid-South Region Greenprint: www.midsouthregiongreenprint.org Memphis-Shelby County Office of Sustainability http://www.sustainableshelby.com “Our vision is to

“The Memorial Tree program allows groups and

The West Tennessee Urban

maintain or increase the

individuals to donate trees to honor and commemorate

Forestry Council (Chapter)

City of Bartlett’s Year

individuals, families, and organizations. It is a way to

provides an Urban Forestry

2004 canopy coverage by

provide a living tribute that will last several lifetimes.”

Advisor class.

10% by the year 2014.”

Lakeland Natural Resources Department

Urban Forest Division, Bartlett TN

VI | P a g e

APPENDIX E. PUBLIC ASSESSMENT AND ENGAGEMENT In November 2014 a survey was conducted with stakeholders at the Canopy Action Plan workshop. The focus of the survey was to gauge the audience’s background, experience, and opinion in the context of urban forestry.

Public Assessment and Engagement Involvement with Greenprint

Involvement in tree planting and management

Have you ever planted a tree?

Where should new trees be planted?

Best benefit trees provide for the ecosystem

Best benefit trees provide for people

Are trees properly managed?

Plan to get involved

In parks, parkways, medians in City (many from greenhouse seed)

Plants oaks and maples

Along trees and hot spots

Food for birds

Cool environment

No, stressed due to climate change and mechanical damage

Yes

Kept informed by Rusty Bloodworth

Plan and install trees, make sure trees survive in HOA's

Yes, through Landscape Architecture work

All new homes with appropriate size should install large deciduous trees

Shade, habitat, oxygen

Aesthetics and property value

No, people don't know how or can't afford

Implement town's tree policies for dev't applications and site maintenance

Lots at homes oaks, cherry, goldenraintree, river birch

Streets, medians, parking lots, single family lots

Stormwater, habitat, temps

Shade, air quality, aesthetics, property values

Public - yes, by Parks Dep't Private - yes, where owners care about values

Administrator

Yes

Street medians, public lands

Wildlife, water quality, erosion

Shade, air quality, aesthetics, wind buffer

Yes

Parks, buffers

Protection

Recreation, aesthetics

Mostly

Community

Affiliation

Aware of Greenprint?

Bartlett

City of Memphis Park Operations, Horticulturalist

Yes

Bartlett

Landscape Architect for Land Development in several Shelby County municipalities

Collierville

Staff (town planner)

Yes

Greenways and Data Group/Provided data

Germantown

Director of Parks

Yes

Parks and Greenways Group

Olive Branch, MS

WRC volunteer

No

N/A

Tree farming

40 acres of sawtooth oaks and cherry in Union County, MS

Germantown

Planner

Yes

N/A

Staff Planner to Design Review Commission and Tree Board

Home tree planting

Public parks, residential lots

Runoff reduction and wildlife benefits

Aesthetics, shade, cooling

Yes, more education needed though

Memphis/Shelby County (9-1) districts

Advocate with non-profit land trust

Yes

Parks and Greenways Group

Monitor conservation easements, accept new ones

Home tree planting

Medians, abandoned lots

Oxygen/air quality improvement

Air quality, property values, stress relief

Not when (some) utility companies prune

VII | P a g e

APPENDIX F. CHARTS SUMMARIZING PRIORITY PLANTING AREAS Arlington Number of Parcels By Priority Group and Class

Parcel Count by Priority Group Parcel Count

Parcel Count

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

0 Highest

High

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Medium

Medium High

Highest

C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

Available Planting Space (ac) in each Priority Group by Class

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

2000

1200

1500 1000 500

1000 800 600

Medium

400

High

Highest

200

0

0 Highest

High Priority

Medium

C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

VIII | P a g e

Bartlett

Parcel Count by Priority Group

Number of Parcels By Priority Group and Class 16 14

25 Parcel Count

12 Parcel Count

20 15 10 5

10 8

Medium

6

High

4

Highest

2

0

0 Highest

High

Medium

C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group

Available Planting Space (ac) in Priority Group

by Class 50 Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

200 150 100 50 0

40 30 Medium 20

High

10

Highest

166 0

Highest

High Priority

Medium

C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

IX | P a g e

Collierville

Parcel Count by Priority Group

Number of Parcels By Priority Group and Class

3500 Parcel Count

Parcel Count

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

500 0 Highest

High

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Medium

Medium High Highest

3064 C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Available Planting Space (ac) in each Priority Group by Class Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group

Highest

High Priority

Medium

650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Medium

High Highest C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

X|Page

Germantown

Number of Parcels by Priority Group and Class 1400 1200

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

Parcel Count

Parcel Count

Parcel Count by Priority Group

1000 800

Medium

600

High

400

Highest

200 0 Highest

High

Medium

C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group

Available Planting Space (ac) in each Priority Group by Class 100 Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

200 150 100 50 0

80 60 Medium 40

High

20

Highest

0 Highest

High Priority

Medium

C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

XI | P a g e

Lakeland Parcel Count by Priority Group

Number of Parcels by Priority Group in Each Class

700 600

600

500

400

Parcel Count

Parcel Count

500

300 200 100 0

400 300

Medium

200

High

100

Highest

0 Highest

High

Medium

C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group

Available Planting Space (ac) by Priority Group in Each Class 200

250

Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

300

200 150 100 50 0

150 Medium

100

High

50

Highest

0 Highest

High Priority

Medium

C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

XII | P a g e

Memphis

Number of Parcels by Priority Group in Each Class

Parcel Count by Priority Group 35000

25000

20000

25000

Parcel Count

Parcel Count

30000 20000 15000 10000

15000 Medium 10000

High

5000

5000 0

Highest

0 Highest

High

Medium

C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

Available Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group in Each Class

14000

14000

12000

12000

Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

10000 8000

Medium

6000

High

4000

Highest

2000 0

Highest

High Priority

Medium

C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

XIII | P a g e

Millington

Number of Parcels by Priority Group in Each Class

3500

3500

3000

3000

2500

2500

Parcel Count

Parcel Count

Parcel Count by Priority Group

2000 1500 1000

500

2000

Medium

1500

High

1000

Highest

500

0

0 Highest

High

Medium

C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group

Available Planting Space (ac) by Priority Group in Each Class 3000 Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

2500 2000 1500

Medium

1000

High

500

Highest

0 Highest

High Priority

Medium

C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

XIV | P a g e

Unincorporated Areas

Parcel Count by Priority Group

Number of Parcels by Priority Group in Each Class

10000 Parcel Count

Parcel Count

8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Highest

High

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Medium

Medium

High Highest C

E

F

Priority

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

Plantable Space (ac) by Priority Group

Available Planting Space (ac) by Priority Group in Each Class Plantable Space (ac)

Plantable Space (ac)

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Highest

High Priority

Medium

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Medium

High Highest C

E

F

I

M

R

Null

Class C = Commercial; E = Park/School; F = Farm/Wooded; I = Industrial; M = Mixed; R = Residential; Null = No Class

XV | P a g e

APPENDIX G. PRIORITY PARCEL SUMMARIES BY MUNICIPALITY Arlington Priority Highest High Medium Total (#)

Commercial (#)

Priority Highest High Medium Total (ac)

Commercial (ac) 0 138 35 173

0 70 66 136

Arlington: Parcel Count for Each Priority by Class Farm/Wooded (#) Industrial (#) Mixed (#) 64 0 0 10 107 17 129 33 40 203 140 57 ` Arlington: Plantable Space for Each Priority by Class Park/School (ac) Farm/Wooded (ac) Industrial (ac) Mixed (ac) 352 0 0 3 1,113 37 101 111 88 457 1,224 125 Park/School (#)

Residential (#)

Null (#)

Total (#)

0 0 1 1

0 365 3,875 4,240

0 0 3 3

64 569 4,147 4,780

0 0 0 0

Residential (ac) Null (ac) 0 550 886 1,437

0 0 3 3

Total (ac) 352 1,842 1,225 3,419

Commercial = C; Park/School = E; Farm/Wooded = F; Industrial = I; Mixed = M; Residential = R; Null = No Class

Bartlett Priority Highest High Medium Total (#)

Commercial (#)

Priority Highest High Medium Total (ac)

Commercial (ac) 0 4 2 6

0 8 15 23

Bartlett: Parcel Count for Each Priority by Class Park/School (#) Farm/Wooded (#) Industrial (#) Mixed (#) 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 3 3 5 3 ` Bartlett: Plantable Space for Each Priority by Class Park/School (ac) Farm/Wooded (ac) Industrial (ac) Mixed (ac) 5 0 0 1 166 0 0 1 1 6 167 1

Residential (#) 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Null (#) 0 7 1 8

Residential (ac) Null (ac) 0 4 0 5

Total (#) 0 0 0 0

2 20 20 42

Total (ac) 0 0 0 0

5 176 4 185

Commercial = C; Park/School = E; Farm/Wooded = F; Industrial = I; Mixed = M; Residential = R; Null = No Class

XVI | P a g e

Collierville Priority Highest High Medium Total (#)

Commercial (#)

Priority Highest High Medium Total (ac)

Commercial (ac) 0 61 44 104

0 40 98 138

Collierville: Parcel Count for Each Priority by Class Park/School (#) Farm/Wooded (#) Industrial (#) Mixed (#) 44 0 0 11 16 2 109 5 51 164 21 53 ` Collierville: Plantable Space for Each Priority by Class Park/School (ac) Farm/Wooded (ac) Industrial (ac) Mixed (ac) 234 0 0 49 21 16 65 120 25 348 141 41

Residential (#)

Null (#)

0 0 1 1

0 121 3,064 3,185

0 0 0 0

Residential (ac) Null (ac) 0 99 624 723

Total (#) 0 0 2 2

44 190 3,330 3,564

0 0 0 0

Total (ac) 234 245 878 1,357

Commercial = C; Park/School = E; Farm/Wooded = F; Industrial = I; Mixed = M; Residential = R; Null = No Class

Germantown Priority Highest High Medium Total (#)

Priority Highest High Medium Total (ac)

Commercial (#) 0 7 26 33

Commercial (ac) 0 12 38 50

Germantown: Parcel Count for Each Priority by Class Park/School (#) Farm/Wooded (#) Industrial (#) Mixed (#) 20 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 60 0 0 Germantown: Plantable Space for Each Priority by Class Park/School (ac) Farm/Wooded (ac) Industrial (ac) Mixed (ac) 73 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 97 0 0

Residential (#)

Null (#)

0 0 0 0

0 13 1,328 1,341

0 0 0 0

Residential (ac) Null (ac) 0 18 89 107

Total (#) 0 0 0 0

20 20 1,394 1,434

Total (ac) 0 0 0 0

73 30 152 255

Commercial = C; Park/School = E; Farm/Wooded = F; Industrial = I; Mixed = M; Residential = R; Null = No Class

XVII | P a g e

Lakeland Priority Highest High Medium Total (#)

Priority Highest High Medium Total (ac)

Commercial (#) 1 6 6 13

Commercial (ac) 1 17 17 34

Park/School (#) 0 0 30 30

Lakeland: Parcel Count for Each Priority by Class Farm/Wooded (#) Industrial (#) Mixed (#) 0 0 21 0 20 0 41 0

Lakeland: Plantable Space for Each Priority by Class Park/School (ac) Farm/Wooded (ac) Industrial (ac) Mixed (ac) 0 0 0 0 12 0 19 56 0 19 68 0

Residential (#)

Null (#)

0 0 0 0

0 44 533 577

0 0 0 0

Residential (ac) Null (ac) 0 61 158 219

Total (#) 0 0 0 0

1 71 589 661

Total (ac) 0 0 0 0

1 89 249 339

Commercial = C; Park/School = E; Farm/Wooded = F; Industrial = I; Mixed = M; Residential = R; Null = No Class

Memphis Priority Highest High Medium Total (#)

Priority Highest High Medium Total (ac)

Commercial (#) 0 884 3,805 4,689

Commercial (ac) 0 971 1,498 2,469

Park/School (#) 2,528 529 1,589 4,646

Memphis: Parcel Count for Each Priority by Class Farm/Wooded (#) Industrial (#) Mixed (#) 0 0 105 751 26 2,040 131 2,791

Memphis: Plantable Space for Each Priority by Class Park/School (ac) Farm/Wooded (ac) Industrial (ac) Mixed (ac) 12,287 0 0 679 3,616 1,557 1,703 38 1,888 14,669 3,655 3,444

Residential (#) 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Null (#)

1 2,863 23,511 26,375

Residential (ac) Null (ac) 0 2,994 2,092 5,086

0 0 3 3

Total (#) 2,529 5,132 30,974 38,635

0 0 1 1

Total (ac) 12,287 9,817 7,220 29,323

Commercial = C; Park/School = E; Farm/Wooded = F; Industrial = I; Mixed = M; Residential = R; Null = No Class

XVIII | P a g e

Millington Priority Highest High Medium Total (#)

Priority Highest High Medium Total (ac)

Commercial (#) 0 53 322 375

Commercial (ac) 0 117 490 607

Millington: Parcel Count for Each Priority by Class Park/School (#) Farm/Wooded (#) Industrial (#) Mixed (#) 99 0 0 28 111 11 74 27 9 201 138 20 Millington: Plantable Space for Each Priority by Class Park/School (ac) Farm/Wooded (ac) Industrial (ac) Mixed (ac) 2,458 0 0 33 1,120 84 197 59 11 2,688 1,179 95

Residential (#)

Null (#)

0 0 0 0

2 329 2,869 3,200

0 0 0 0

Residential (ac) Null (ac) 0 503 1,005 1,508

Total (#) 0 0 0 0

101 532 3,301 3,934

0 0 0 0

Total (ac) 2,458 1,857 1,762 6,077

Commercial = C; Park/School = E; Farm/Wooded = F; Industrial = I; Mixed = M; Residential = R; Null = No Class

XIX | P a g e